Labour – turning the corner – politicalbetting.com
Labour – turning the corner – politicalbetting.com
In a recent header, I suggested Labour should replace Sir Keir Starmer if they wanted to win the next election. It looks like the axe will fall after the Makerfield by-election, with Andy Burnham taking the crown, if he wins. If he loses, we could be looking at PM Miliband or Rayner.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Problem is I doubt if Burnham will be any better.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/e44d64ac-5882-4037-b868-11fc34243116?shareToken=b33877eb181445488cd63ffba790781d
I can see a window to a late summer 2027 GE , if the runes land right and the mood music is more positive.
A small overall Labour majority with likely LD / Green support when needed could well see Farage throwing the dummy out!
Tories under a sensible and competent Leader would then have at least a chance, the chance they don't currently have, of avoiding extinction and returning as the most credible right wing Party by 2033.
Theresa May's incentive was the prospect of replacing a bare majority with a huge majority. The last politician to needlessly throw away such a majority under those circumstances was Baldwin in 1923, and he was rather lucky nobody could agree on an alternative leader.
Once in office and making difficult decisions he's no longer a blank canvas and that becomes much harder to sustain.
Are you not seeing the problem here?
https://www.ft.com/content/57334fae-a475-4ab0-a202-8df3766927e4
https://x.com/harrietcross_mp/status/2056827039299014719
In order to influence the leadership of the country you need to influence the ecosystem.
(You might may an argument that CNN has limited influence on the current administration but I don’t think that was your point)
Ambassadors to the UK regularly appear on the BBC, Sky etc. Weird thing to object to.
If he wants a mandate for his new programme he'll have to call a General.
It's projection.
But really, America, has it come to this?
I don't expect radical left-wing stuff from him because if he tries that the markets and the electorate will rapidly boot him out of office.
What he will do is make them think he's on their side, and be rather more convincing about it.
The drilling ban is ideological national suicide. The Norwegian government, also of the left at the moment, is permitting drilling like crazy.
That's one of the problems. The other problems with taxing the rich, however defined, are that
- they are key to the country's savings and entrepreneurial investment decisions, so you damage long run economic growth
- they are unusually internationally mobile, so they can just leave, as around 25,000 millionaires have since Labour took office
- much of their wealth is tied up in primary residences, which are quite difficult to tax beyond a certain small amount, because they doesn't directly generate cash, while such property transactions can be taxed but doing so gums up labour mobility, and anyway the UK already has some of the highest property taxes, especially at the high end, in the world
- previous governments over the past generation have used this expedient many times anyway.
Overall, taxing the rich more than the heavy burden they already pay is a terrible idea, economically destructive and financially counter-productive. So I imagine the new Labour leader will probably jump at it.
He's an unknown quantity for most of the electorate. With years to go and a large majority in Parliament, what's the case for us awarding him another few years to demonstrate of he's any good in power ?
It doesn't exist from our point if view.
Asking for a new, and longer "mandate" before he's done anything other than kick out his predecessor would be entirely self serving.
It’s like a ruddy Mafia clan.
He thinks the rich and wealthy should pay more. Including millionaires.
When I pointed out with his property, DC pension pots and other savings/assets he’s a millionaire so he needs to stump up he was less keen. I’d guess it would mean a few less bottles of Jack Daniel’s a month.
Two Chinese tankers laden with oil exited the Strait of Hormuz, shipping data showed, brightening hopes that the conflict with Iran may soon be resolved after positive comments from the U.S. president and his deputy.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/tankers-exit-hormuz-trump-vance-talk-up-iran-deal-prospects-2026-05-20/ (£££)
Huzzah for President Xi. (NB this is me not Reuters!)
Trump goes to China to ask for help ending the Iran standoff. What does China get in return?
Well, in a massive coincidence, USA & UK ease sanctions on Russian oil whose main buyer is China. China gets Iran to allow Chinese tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
Still, we must welcome peace in the Middle East so Iran can get on with its business of killing dissidents by the thousand.
U.S. President Donald Trump scored another victory in his campaign to punish disloyal Republicans on Tuesday as Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky lost his primary race, underscoring the risks for lawmakers who defy Trump.
Massie, who angered Trump by leading a push to release Justice Department files tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and emerged as an outspoken critic of the war with Iran, was defeated by Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL backed by the president and bolstered by heavy spending by pro-Israel groups.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-targets-massie-tuesday-primary-purge-republican-critics-intensifies-2026-05-19/ (£££)
Which would also be fucking stupid.
The biggest problem for Britain is, I think, political. Someone has to convince the public that the trajectory over the last few decades (selling assets to fund spending) has been very damaging, that it is necessary to turn it around, that it's best done sooner rather than later, and that it requires everyone making sacrifices. It's a really hard sell given the political status quo, and of course people won't be willing to make sacrifices when they believe that others are not having to do so, or are taking advantage of the system (e.g. as with the boat crossings).
I don't see Burnham attempting this. He's going to present some version of magical thinking, whereby he has painless solutions to deep-seated problems that all other politicians have willfully refused to implement. Meanwhile he tries to cobble together improvements that don't go far enough, constrained by fiscal reality and political dishonesty, in the hope that they will do just enough to win him reelection.
Three years feels like a long time to keep the public onside with such a strategy.
NEW
Inflation eases from 3.3% to 2.8% in year to April, with falls in domestic energy and other bills (water, VED) last month counteracted by a rise in petrol prices…
Core inflation 2.5% vs 3.1%… services 3.2% vs 4.5% …
Lowest services inflation since January 2022 - key indicator for Bank of England…
Lowest core inflation since July 2021
Good set of figures before the inevitable upwards turn from full impact of Iran war, especially on domestic bills.
NEW
Inflation eases from 3.3% to 2.8% in year to April, with falls in domestic energy and other bills (water, VED) last month counteracted by a rise in petrol prices…
Core inflation 2.5% vs 3.1%… services 3.2% vs 4.5% …
Lowest services inflation since January 2022 - key indicator for Bank of England…
Lowest core inflation since July 2021
Good set of figures before the inevitable upwards turn from full impact of Iran war, especially on domestic bills.
Good morning, everyone.
OrangeManBad and the Joos did it, not our problem guv.
At least Brown actually got involved in trying to fix the problem, rather than struggling his shoulders and complaining about the situation.
It's one of the factors that make expanding a business incredibly difficult as if you buy better premises you promptly get smacked for this massive deadweight cost before you've any prospects of increased revenue. The valuations are also terribly random, and very hard to challenge - eg I'm eyeing up some potential business premises at the moment - the site is worth about £400k in the real world (thus implied rent of about £40k)but somehow attracts a £100k pa business rate payment - I suspect this was a significant factor in the previous occupier going bust.
It also creates loads of perverse incentives to do things like knock down perfect usable buildings you're not currently using and can't easily let, as it's based on the developed value of a site, not the land value.
It should be entirely abolished and replaced with higher taxation on profits, or even VAT (at least you have to be making sales to collect it) if the government wants business growth to occur. If they are worried about Amazon et-all gaming the system by remitting profit abroad for licensing or whatever just have different rules over say £100 million turnover.
Put like that, it's a dead cert.
Is Burnham going to allow the large increase in defence spending that was being mooted? It struck me yesterday that he was rather tying himself in knots between keeping Reeves' rules (to assuage the bond market and avoid becoming a second Truss) and no cuts. Where does the promised £18bn so urgently needed come from? I don't think he has an answer to this yet and it is one of the most pressing issues facing the government.
Business rates is a different matter, the 2026 rates are going to create a whole set of problems...
Others round here are seeing small increases but that is a staggering increase.
So I'd expect no boost to the public finances, and it'd probably make it even worse.
Whether or not it reduces prices it will increase global supply from a more stable,location.
Obviously an actual revaluation would help, the band D I'm buying in Derbyshire is worth about 30% of a average band D in Surrey.
(See also: Triple Lock.)
Their answer from yesterday is to ban drilling their own oil, choosing to buy it from Putin instead, while whistling into the sky about the situation in the Arabian Gulf.
You’d also be wrong with your assumptions. The pub, I have been frequenting for many years, has never been ‘awful’.
Still its just a nice local.
They want to “Tax The Rich”, with no thought whatsoever as to 2nd and 3rd order effects on the wider economy.
If you want to run the double Dutch, with 432 holding companies, which all lose money trading with each other, go for it. You will be under the old system.
Over time, reduce the tax on the first and raise them on the second.
People are getting upset about the prospect of 50% income tax rates. My marginal tax rate is 56%. For people on UC, the rate is typically between 55% and 75%. NICs is only 2% over £50k, 8% under that. 50% already exists for large chunks of younger and poorer workers.
Roughly:
Band B is a two-bed apartment
Band D is going to be your average house, 3bed and a small garden.
Band F is a nice four-bed house
Band G is a five-bed house or larger
OECD average - 1.9%
UK - 3.7%
US - 2.8%
France - 3.5%
Germany - 0.9%
Canada - 3.4%
Japan - 2.6%
Australia - 2.7%
Netherlands - 1.2%
https://www.compareyourcountry.org/tax-revenues/en/0/675+677+678+679+676+681/default
And 12% stamp duty on top end transactions is I think about the highest tax rate in the world, only beaten by Belgium at 12.5% (federal+provincial) afaik. When you add to that clueless Rachel's revision of Council Tax from 2027 to soak high end property, you have a system that is very punitive.
Funny how those who think that The Germans Do It Better never seem to want to cut our property taxes by more than 75% ...
Land value taxation is another no brainer.
He did actually vote against the budget though, in the UK parliament he’d lose the whip for that.
You can disagree as much as you like with the policy of the party you’ve been elected to represent, but for the important votes you’re expected to walk through the right lobby.
Then it will happen like an avalanche.
Note that Genfell was, in large part, about a pyramid of contracting. Where turning the screws on the contractor below you was the way to make money. So by the bottom of the chain, you are squeezing so hard that only the scumbags can make money. Strangely….
But as we’ve discussed previously, the whole thing is broken because even property in the most deprived parts of Scotland incurs significant NDR, which makes zero sense. I think it’s a malign combination of a rubbish tax system + some dodgy accounting by property owners.
Tempting just to bin it entirely, but then you do end up with High Streets dominated by empty shells. That’s why Malmesbury is right about some hybrid system.
The £62 billion annual cost is set to rise sharply.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/may/20/uk-built-for-climate-that-no-longer-exists-and-needs-urgent-changes-to-survive-global-heating-report-warns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I'm not sure how you differentiate between zombie outfits and people trying to grow a business - I took over what was pretty much a zombie company five years ago, have fixed the fundamentals and am now growing aggressively, but I've never made much of a profit, because all the "profit" goes straight back in as investment. You can see it in my employee numbers and turnover, but neither of those are completely reliable indicators.
I’m firmly of the opinion that, were he to announce a cure for cancer, the US media and most of this forum would be trying to present it negatively.
I’ve definitely critised Trump on Ukraine, as I did with Biden before him. They have both been weak in different ways, and I don’t like Bessent’s trading of Russian oil just as I don’t like Miliband’s doing the same.
My over-riding opinion on US politics is on the other side, that the Democrats have been captured by wokery, communism, and increasingly antisemitism. They’re starting to look like the Greens in the UK, with the mayor of New York talking about opening state-run grocery stores, and the mayor of LA talking about giving free dentistry to illegal immigrant homeless meth-heads living on the streets.
Anyway, work to do!
Massie was far from perfect, but at least he did something about opposing the sexual abuse of children.
Undoubtedly she made mistakes early, but did SHE or was it driven by Treasury / McSweeney / SKS fear!
In the past 6-9 months she has made sound decisions, she ha clearly got the confidence of the markets and prior to Trump/Netayahu attacks on Iran almost EVERY economic indicator was running in the right direction.
I believe if it is burnham, he would be economically wise to retain here and actually Politically wise, don't rock the markets, show confidence in here, especially as he's tied himself it seems to her fiscal rules.
I dont see a better fit other than Darren Jones in the role and he'd not deviate much from her Policy.
Its the MESSAGING that is key as much as the policy and political nous Burnham may have surely has does have that Starmer has never had.